When the Genesis' account of creation is studied and not just
superficially read, one is greatly impressed with how such a great amount of profundity
and complexity is so simply and concisely presented (such is a vestige of inspiration). If
mere man had attempted to pen Genesis one and two, a plethora of material would have been
required and even with the plentitude, frustration would have been experienced.

In the Genesis account of creation, we observe all the
necessary elements (according to science) in order to have creation. There was time,
energy, force, space, and matter. All these elements are succinctly presented in the very
first verse of Genesis chapter one. Another obvious fact of creation is the gradation
involved from "the earth was without form and void" to "let us make man in
our image" (vs. 1; 26). Still another elementary observation of creation is the
reference to the six days comprised in effecting creation. You will observe that the
creative activities and accomplishments of each day are followed by "and the evening
and the morning were the first day," etc. (Gen. 1: 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). We read,
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the
seventh day from all his work which he had made" (Gen. 2: 2). We marvel that the
Creator is so omnipotent that he could create all that is created by his fiat in just six
days (Ps. 33: 6, 148: 5, Ex. 20: 11).

Are the six days of creation six solar days? In view of the
growing popularity of theistic evolution and man's efforts in general to merge Darwinian
evolution and Genesis one, we are being inundated with the day-age teaching. Day-age
creationists believe and teach that there are six ages set forth in Genesis one, each age
representing aeons of time. Hence, man was a late introduction to an already old earth.
For your consideration, allow me to present five reasons why we must view the six days of
creation as literal twenty-four hour periods.

An examination of "evening
and the morning were the day." I grant that yom (Hebrew word
used for day) is used in several different ways in the Hebrew scriptures. However, when
"evening and morning" are used in connection with "day," it becomes
apparent that the days under consideration were normal solar days.

Had the inspired writer wanted to convey the thought of
day-age, he could have done so. For instance, yamin (plural of yom, day) alone with
"evening and morning" would have meant "and it was days of evening and
morning." Such an expression would have been the simplest way for the writer to
express the possibility of a period or age. Another choice would have been to use the
Hebrew word olam (age). Olam combined with "day" would also have meant "and
it was from day of old ." However, the writer did not use the choices that could
have suggested day-age, he used a construction that left no doubt six literal twenty-four
hour days are meant. Furthermore, if the writer had wanted to articulate to the reader a
continuing event, he could have easily done so. For instance, the Hebrew dor used either
alone or with "days," "days and nights," or "evening and
morning" would have signified "and it was generations of days and
nights ." Thus, he could have taught that creation took place over a vast amount
of time (the necessary position of organic and theistic evolution). The Hebrew olam used
with the preposition le plus "days" or "evening and morning" would
have meant perpetual days in creation. However, creation is presented as an event, not a
process. Also, the writer even had the choice of being ambiguous, time wise. Yom combined
with "light" and "darkness" would have suggested "and it was day
of light and darkness." Intelligent reader, yom (day) accompanied by "evening
and morning," especially with a number preceding it, can never be ambiguous.

What I am attempting to say is, there is no way the writer
could have expressed in words more decisively, irrefutably, and absolutely and without any
doubt or possibility of alternate meanings the idea that God created all things in six
consecutive literal twenty-four hour days than by saying "and the evening and the
morning were the first day." Moreover, if "day" stands for "age,"
what would "evening" and "morning" (periods making up "day,"
see Gen. 1: 5) mean, shorter ages compared to "day"?

The days of creation cannot be
ages in view of Adam. Man, Adam, was created on the sixth day (Gen. 1: 26
ff.). Adam and Eve lived through day six and day seven (if the six days are ages, then day
seven would also be an age, more later). Upon Adam's expulsion from the garden, we are
told about his life, his sons and their problems, and Adam's grandchildren (Gen. 4). We
read, "And the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he
died" (Gen. 5: 5). Therefore, in view of Adam's age at death, the seven days of
Genesis one could not have been long periods of time (millions of years, according to
some).

The days cannot stand for ages
in view of sin and death. Theistic evolutionists are telling us that death
preceded Adam and Eve by vast periods of time (five ages, "days"). However, the
scriptures tell us, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death
by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5: 12).
Beloved, with sin came death, spiritual and physical. According to the Bible, preceding
Adam's sin death was none existent. Hence, the day-age theory is diametrically opposed to
the Genesis' days being simple solar days.

The days cannot be vast periods
of time because of Jesus' teaching about the creation of Adam and Eve.
Jesus said, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them
male and female "? (Matt. 19: 4). If the five days of creation that preceded
Adam and Eve are aeons of time, Adam and Eve were not made at the beginning, as Jesus said
they were. As a consequence, the days of creation have to be understood as literal days.
In addition, Jesus implied tribulation or affliction began "at the beginning of
creation" (Mk. 13: 19). Since affliction is associated with man and sin, there could
not have been extended periods of time before Adam.

The days of creation cannot be
ages in view of the Sabbath day rest. As seen, the seventh day was the
final consecutive day mentioned in connection with creation (Gen. 2: 1-3). It was on the
seventh day that we are told God "rested" (Ex. 20: 11). Based on the seventh
day, the Jews were commanded to set apart the "seventh day" for a Sabbath (Ex.
20: 10). How could the observance of the seventh day of the week have been based on the
seventh day relative to creation, unless the seventh day following creation was a literal
twenty-four hour day?

Concerned reader, there is no allowance for compromising God's
word or attempting to merge the pseudo science of theistic evolution and the Bible (Deut.
4: 2, Rev. 22: 18, 19). We either accept or reject the Bible. According to a mountain of
the clearest and most overwhelming biblical evidence, the days of creation were literal
twenty-four hour solar days. Allow me to quote the celebrated commentator H. C. Leupold:

"When the verse concludes
with the statement that the first 'day' (yom) is concluded, the term must mean a
twenty-four hour period .There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom
means period. Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this
notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable information concerning
Hebrew words. Commentators with critical leanings utter statements that are very decided
in this instance. Says Skinner: 'The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favorite resource of
harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage and has
no warrant in Hebrew usage.' Dillmann remarks: 'The reasons advanced by ancient and modern
writers for construing these days to be longer periods of time are
inadequate .'" (Leupold on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, pg. 56, 57.)